PZC Minutes 060382RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
JUNE 3, 1982. 7:30 P. M.
The regular meeting of the Design F%eview Board of Avon was held on June 3, 1982,
at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Council Chambers of the Town of Avon Municipal Complex,
400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Bill Pierce.
Let the record ehow that members present were: Bob Zeeb, Cheryl Dingwell,
Tommy Landauer, Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Jerry Davis. Jim Meehan was not present.
Staff present: Art Abplanalp, Terrill Knight, Dick Evans, Norm Wood. Dick
Blodgett was also present.
Item No. 4. "Kandahar Condominiums" Extension of time for_ Sales Office Trailer,
Lot 60 Block 2 Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-6-4.
(Bill Pierce stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Chair was turned over
to Tommy Landauer).
Orin Palmateer made the presentation. Requesting approval to extend the time
period for the sales office trailer for an additional six (6) months.
Terrill stated that all the original conditions were met for the trailer and
the signs. Norm stated that the site needed to be cleaned up, as far as the
grading - it needs to be leveled out.
Cheryl motioned to approve the extension for the sales office trailer and signs
on the "Kandahar Condominium project" and a condition of the motion be that
the property be cleaned up within thirty (30) days from today, and the extension
be for another six (6) months. Motion was seconded by Mike.
Dick Blodgett stared that the Preliminary Plan must be approved before pre -sales.
Orin stated they were not doing pre -sales. Motion was passed unanimously.
(December 1, 1982 expires).
(chair was turned back over to Bill Pierce)
ck 2
vision. File
Dennis Cole/Attorney for U S Home Corporation and Colorado Investment Realty
Company, made the presentation. He presented a supplement to the application
which contained the information requested by the Board from the 5/20/82 meeting.
He stated they met with the Staff on Wednesday, May 27, 1982 and discusst-d this
information. He stated that even during the time-sharing period the bed tax
and sales tax will not be lost to the Town because units will be in the rental
pool as well. The bottom line seems to indicate there is a difference of
approximately $160,000.00 over a 5 year period to the benefit of the town with
a time-share approach taking advantage of the transfer tax. Aslo the units will
be maintained to at least the standards of the Motel -Hotel Association of America,
as well as to the standards determined by the Owners' Association of the Christie
Lodge, whichever is higher. There will not be any costs to the Town of Avon. As
far as parking, the property is currently zoned for one (1) parking space per
accommodation unit as well as the parking space required for commercial parking.
Each time-share user will have only 1 parking space. The marketing program will
be conducted by fully licensed persons falling under the strict purview of the
Colorado Real Estate Commission and the consumer protective provisions of the
Laws of the State of Colorado governing these activities. The Developer warrants
that there will be no off -premises contact marketing. Also the Town of Avon will
be held harmless from any costs or expenses that might be incurred as a result of
any action th L may be taken by an individual unit owner. The Developer agrees
:"2 DL: 13" 1C.. ara or Liv Gn ,las llela on junc 3,
at 7:30 p.i.i., in the Town Council Chambers of Lhe Town of Avon Municipal Complex,
400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Bill Pierce.
Let the record show that members present were: Bob Zeeb, Cheryl Dingwell,
Tommy Landauer, Bill Pierce, Mike Blair, Jerry Davis. Jim Meehan was not present.
Staff present: Art Abplanalp, Terrill Knight, Dick Evans, Norm Wood. Dick
Blodgett was also present.
Item No. 4 "Kandahar Condominiums" Extension of time for Sales Office Trailer,
Lot 60, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-6-4.
(Bill Pierce stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Chair was turned over
to Tommy Landauer).
Orin Palmateer made the presentation. Requesting approval to extend the time
period for the sales office trailer for an additional six (6) months.
Terrill stated that all the original conditions were met for the trailer and
the signs. Norm stated that the site needed to be cleaned up, as far as the
grading - it needs to be leveled out.
Cheryl motioned to approve the extension for the sales office trailer and signs
on the "Kandahar Condominium project" and a condition of the motion be that
the property be cleaned up within thirty (30) days from today, and the extension
be for another six (6) months. Motion was seconded by Mike.
Dick Blodgett stated that the Preliminary Plan must be approved before pre -sales.
Orin stated they were not doing pre -sales. Motion was passed unanimously.
(December 1, 1982 expires).
(chair was turned back over to Bill Pierce)
Item No. 1. Chri
Dennis Cole/Attorney for U S Home Corporation and Colorado Investment Realty
Company, made the presentation. He presented a supplement to the application
which contained the information requested by the Board from the 5/20/82 meeting.
He stated they met with the Staff on Wednesday, May 27, 1982 and discussed this
information. He stated that even during the time-sharing period the bed tax
and sales tax will not be lost to the Town because units will be in the rental
pool as well. The bottom line seems to indicate there is a difference of
approximately $160,000.00 over a 5 year period to the benefit of the town with
a time-share approach taking advantage of the transfer tax. Aslo the units will
be maintained to at least the standards of the Motel -Hotel Association of America,
as well as to she standardsdet?rmined by the Owners' Association of the Christie
Lodge, whichever is higher. There will not be any costs to the Town of Avon. As
far as parking, the property is currently zoned for one (1) packing space per
accommodation unit as well as the parking space required for commercial parking.
Each time-share user will have only 1 parking space. The marketing program will
be conducted by fully licensed persons falling under the strict purview of the
Colorado Real Estate Commission and the consumer protective provisions of the
Laws of the State of Colorado governing these activities. The Developer warrants
that there will he no off -premises contact marketing. Also the Town of Avon will
be held harmless from any costs or expenses that might be incurred as a result of
any action that may be taken by an individual unit owner. The Developer agrees
to comply with all time-sharing ordinances, rules and regulations of the Town,
(Time -Share for Christie Lodge Cont'd)
currently in existence or as they may hereafter be enacted. The units will
be specifically identified both to the Design Review Board as well as the
Town Council, as a part of the subdivision procedure. There will only be one
management company for the entire complex.
The attorney stated that the Design Review Board is to consider the following
criteria for Special Review Use:
Section 17.20.020 Granting of special review use. B-1 Whether the proposed
use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code
(no comments from Board members)
2. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of
this zoning code and the applicable zoning district. (Cheryl stated she feels
that the use is consistent because it was zoned for condo/hotel and doesn't
feel the use is changed. Tommy stated that a condo is so and you own it forever,
feels there is a step outside of the use.)
3. Whether the proposed use is designed to be compatible with surrounding land
uses and uses in the area. (no comments)
Section 17.20.030 B-3: The Design Review Board in approving a special review
use, shall make a finding that the conditions in this section are satisfied
by the reasons set forth in the application and that granting the special review
use will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building and structure.
(Mike stated he didn't know if any comment could be made on that because the
building is already constructed. Terrill stated that he wasn't sure if that
meant very strict layout or design uses. Doesn't think that limits the Board
to the layout. Tommy stated that originally the building was set up to be sold as
individual condominium units, now the use is changed by selling 100 units of 280.
Suggested maybe cutting down to 25 units. Feels it is quite a jump. Cheryl stated
she disagreed in that it was originally zoned condo/hotel and that is a high -use
and high-density situation. Mike stated that the building is designed for short
term use. The management is more important. )
4. The Design Review Board, in approving a special review use, may prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning laws of the
town, violation of which shall be deemed a violation of this section. (Bill stated
that at the last meeting the Board asked for a number of Items to be addressed and
they have been. Dennis stated that the items in the supplement are to become a
part of the record. Bill P. stated that at the worksession on 5/27/82, the
majoriti of the Board felt that time-sharing was not an inappropriate use for this
site. He asked if the developer would agree to a 72 hour redemption clause where
a purchaser could get out of his purchase if he were high-pressured into it.
Pat Montgomery stated this is treated as a consumer transaction under Colorado
law, therefore there is no right -of -rescission that is normally imposed. Dennis
and Pat both stated that if the approval includes that condition, then they will
comply with it. Terrill stated that (for the record) the Worksession was not to
discuss any one particular project - it was for all. projects.
Cheryl added that the time-share be limited to the core area. Jerry stated he
didn't feel it was relevant. Bill stated that time-sharing is an intense use
and the Design Review Board felt that time-sharing should be permitted, if
anywhere, in the central downtown area, not in outlying RHDC districts.
Section 17.20.040 Special Re%Iew Criteria: A. The adequacv of access to the
site with respect to the width of the adjacent streets, their grades, intersection
safety, visibility and entranc•s into the lot to be developed. (Norm stated there
wouldn't be any problems). B. Whether: there exists safe access and sufficient
water pressure to provide fire protection. (no comments). C. The existent water
pressure in the area and the atility of the water svutem to supply domestic needs.
D. Whether there will be provided sufficient off-street parking as determined by
(1) the intended use of the propeorty, (2) walking distance to the downtown area,
and (3) the availibility of public transportation. (Cheryl commented that there
wouldn't be any increased use. Terrill stated that on a weekly or bi-weekly
use pattern, that would be peak traffic. Pat Montgomery stated that the weeks
would probably be Saturday to Saturday. They are installing a computer to help
with the reservation system so all this can be easily managed. Terrill stated
it was just an issue to consider on the impact of traffic. Bill asked if it
would require further study? Terrill responded by saying that in certain locations
it would, but in this location there would be less effect. Mike asked about
shuttle system from Christie Lodge. Dennis stated there is a shuttle system
provided by Ctiristie Lode to the airnorr during ski season. Pat stated that
criteria for Special Review Use:
Section 17.20.020 Granting of special review use. B-1 Whether the proposed
use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code
(no comments from Board members)
2. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of
this zoning code and the applicable zoning district. (Cheryl stated she feels
that the use is consistent because it was zoned for condo/hotel and doesn't
feel the use is changed. Tommy stated that a condo is so and you own it forever,
feels there is a step outside of the use.)
3. Whether the proposed use is designed to be compatible with surrounding land
uses and uses in the area. (no comments)
Section 17.20.030 B-3: The Design Review Board in approving a special review
use, shall make a finding that the conditions in this section are satisfied
by the reasons set free.; in the application and that granting the special review
use will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building and structure.
(Mike stated he didn't know if any comment could be made on that because the
building is already constructed. Terrill stated that he wasn't sure if that
meant very strict layout or design uses. Doesn't think that limits the Board
to the layout. Tommy stated that originally the building was set up to be sold as
individual condominium units, now the use is changed by selling 100 units of 280.
Suggested maybe cutting down to 25 units. Feels it is quite a jump. Cheryl stated
she disagreed in that it was originally zoned condo/hotel and that is a high -use
and high-density situation. Mike stated that the building is designed for short
term use. The management 1s more important. )
4. The Design Review Board, in approving a special review use, may prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning laws of the
town, violation of which shall be deemed a violation of this section. (Bill stated
that at the last meeting the Board asked for a number of items to be addressed and
they have been. Dennis stated that the items in the supplement are to become a
part of the record. Bill P. stated that at the worksession on 5/27/82, the
majority of the Board felt that time-sharing was not an inappropriate use for this
site. He asked if the developer would agree to a 72 hour redemption clause where
a purchaser could get out of his purchase if he were high-pressured into it.
Pat Montgomery stated this is treated as a consumer transaction under Colorado
law, therefore there is no right -of -rescission that is normally imposed. Dennis
and Pat both stated that if the approval includes that condition, then they will
comply with it. Terrill stated that (for the record) the Worksession was not to
discuss any one particular project - it was for all projects.
Cheryl added that the time-share be limited to the core area. Jerry stated he
didn't feel it was relevant. Bill stated that time-sharing is an intense use
and the Design Review Board felt that time-sharing should be permitted, if
anywhere, in the central downtown area, not in outlying RHDC districts.
Section 17.20.040 Special Review Criteria: A. The adequacy of access to the
site with respect to the width of the adjacent streets, their grades, intersection
safety, visibility and entrance into the lot to be developed. (Norm stated there
wouldn't be any problems). B. Whether there exists safe access and sufficient
water pressure to provide fire protection. (no comments). C. The existent water
pressure in the area and the ability of the water system to supply domestic needs.
D. Whether there will be provided sufficient off-street parking as determined by
(1) the intended use of the property, (2) walking distance to the downtown area,
and (3) the availibility of public transportation. (Chervl commented that there
wouldn't be any increased use. Terrill stated that on a weekly or bi-weekly
use pattern, that would be peak traffic. Pat Montgomery stated that the weeks
would probably be Saturday to Saturday. They are installing a computer to help
with the reservation system so all this can be easily managed. Terrill stated
it was just an issue to consider on the impact of traffic. Bill asked if it
would require further study? Terrill responded by saying that in certain locations
it would, but in this location there would be less effect. Mike asked about
shuttle system from Christie Lodge. Dennis stated there is a shuttle system
provided by Christie Lodge to the airport during ski season. Pat stated that
Christie Lodge is sprviced by the public bus system.
E. The impact of the development, considpring the potential for stream and air
pollution, the availability of public transportation and other public or private
services, and any other factors affecting the overall development and the
surrounding areas, including but not limited to building height, view plane,
-2-
(Time -Share for Christie Lodge Cont'd)
drainage and other physical and aesthetical features. (Jerry felt that the
time-share possibility is something the Town of Avon should look at and the best
way to find out if it will work is to approve the 100 units and find out later.
Mike agreed with Jerry, in that there is not much change in the use. Tommy
asked if the owners who have already bought units there need to approve the use
too. Dennis stated that the Town Council will have to address the amendment of
the plat taking out the restriction of time-sharing. It will also be an
amendmec,t to the Condominium Declarations.
Art suggested that the motion should be made in the form of a resolut_on and
also whether some conditions would be included. Mike stated there should be
some conditions and it should go to the Town Council in the form, that if the
Council so chose, they could modify the conditions in any way.
No further discussion.
Jerry made a motion that WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Avon
has considered the application of U S Home Corporation and Colorado Investment
and Realty Company, for Special Review Use to permit the time-share use of
100 units in the Christie Lodge, has conducted a public hearing on such
application and has determined that such application should be approved provided
that certain conditions be imposed upon such use, which are that the applicants
supplement to the Design Review Board be included as part of this motion, in
addition a 72 hour rescission period be included as part of the supplement and
that all the requirements, such as but not limited to, the final plat for this
use can be allowed, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the application of
U S Home Corporation and Colorado Investment and Realty Company for Special Review
Use to permit the time-share use of 100 units in the Christie Lodge, has satisfied
the requirements of Se tit 17. 0.030; 040 of the Municipal Code shall be and
hereby is approve dAiWo oYke p canT7 ri�WVe�8 tdf, ApnAit tin the
Creek Subdivision, unless otherwise modified by the Council, supplement,
Motion was seconded by Cheryl. Let the record show that motion passed with a
nay vote by Tommy Landauer.
Dei.uis stated that the original copy of the supplement will be given to the
Secretary for the record.
Item No. 2, Avon Commercial Complex, (Roadcal, Inc.), Time -Share Request,
Lots 29-32, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision, File No. 82-6-2 (Public Hearing)
Steve Isom of i -plan, Inc. and also representing Roadcal, Inc., made the
presentation. He stated the reason for the request of a Special Review Use
at this time would be to allow the developer to design the site according to
the proposed use on the site. The design of a time-sharing unit is quite
different from the design of a condominium project as far as the layout of the
units, the durability of the units, the entrance into the project, and the type
of management services provided to the project. Once it has been determined
whether or not time-sharing will exist on the project, plans will be submitted
to the Design Review Board for their review of the architectural design of
the building. The proposed uses on the site would be compatible with uses of
RHDC. The proposed use is for time-sharing in the RHDC district which is
consistent with the zoning code. The adjoining uses are the Christie Lodge
with accommodation units, condominium units, possibly time-sharing units and
commercial uses. Northeast from the site is the Benchmark Plaza with commercial
uses. To the south is the Avon Commercial Center with condominium and commercial
uses. To the west is the proposed Savoy Square with condominium units and
commercial uses. To the north is the I-70 corridor. The proposed time-sharing
would be compatible with all these.adjacent property uses. It is agreed that the
access to the mite will conform to the directions of the Colorado Department of
Highways with regards to access onto Avon Road to the east of the site and to
the Town of Avon with regards to access to Beaver Creek Boulevard. This
conformance shall be in regard to distance from intersections, the safety of
intersections, and the width of the access into the property. We have discussed
the placement and location of the water lines with KKBNA regarding access to fire
hydrants off the site, and there does not appear to be a problem with the sizing
of the lines or location to the property. The developer certifies that they will
meet all conditions set by the district fire department with regard to fire
hydrants and firefighting capacity on site. The existing water pressure in the
area and avai:ability of water is sufficient for this site accurding to discussions
... .:bo...,L�.. .....L ._u ....)moi.... ...•.. +... ..._J . � 1.l .;! . ..�... J1 U !U' U1ul1uLL .LLIU
alsowhethersome conditieus would be include. Mike stated there should be
some conditions and it should go to the Town Council in the form, that if the
Council so chose, they could modify the conditions in any way.
No further discussion.
Jerry made a motion that WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Avon
has considered the application of U S Home Corporation and Colorado Investment
and Realty Company, for Special Review Use to permit the time-share use of
100 units in the Christie Lodge, has conducted a public hearing on such
application and has determined that such application should be approved provided
that certain conditions be imposed upon such use, which are that the applicants
supplement to the Design Review Board be included as part of this motion, in
addition a 72 hour rescission period be included as part of the supplement and
that all the requirements, such as but not limited to, the final plat for this
use can be allowed, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the application of
U S Home Corporation and Colorado Investment and Realty Company for Special Review
Use to permit the time-share use of 100 units in the Christie Lodge, has satisfied
the requirements of Se tiq n,,, 17. 0.030; 040 of the Municipal Code shall be and
hereby is approve0Afoirt L W ,WanT7 re�ibreA rch&�L� wW� &Pn it 4n the
Creek Subdivision, unless otherwise modified by the Council. supplement,
Motion was seconded by Cheryl. Let the record show that motion passed with a
nay vote by Tommy Landauer.
Dennis stated that the original copy of the supplement will be given to the
Secretary for the record.
I
arin
Steve Isom of i -plan, Inc. and also representing Roadeal, Inc., made the
presentation. He stated the reason for the request of a Special Review Use
at this time would be to allow the developer to design the site according to
the proposed use on the site. The design of a time-sharing unit is quite
different from the design of a condominium project as far as the layout of the
units, the durability of the units, the entrance into the project, and the type
of management services provided to the project. Once it has been determined
whether or not time-sharing will exist on the project, plans will be submitted
to the Design Review Board for their review of the architectural design of
the building. The proposed uses on the site would be compatible with uses of
RHDC. The proposed use is for time-sharing in the RHDC district which is
consistant with the zoning code. The adjoining uses are the Christie Lodge
with accommodation units, condominium units, possibly time-sharing units and
commercial uses. Northeast from the site is the Benchmark Plaza with commercial
uses. To the south is the Avon Commercial Center with condominium and commercial
uses. To the west is the proposed Savoy Square with condominium units and
commercial uses. To the north is the I-70 corridor. The proposed time-sharing
would be compatible with all these adjacent property uses. It is agreed that the
access to the site will conform to the directions of the Colorado Department of
Highways with regards to access onto Avon Road to the east of the site and to
the Town of Avon with regards to access to Beaver Creek Boulevard. This
conformance shall be in regard to distance from intersections, the safety of
intersections, and the width of the access into the property. We have discussed
the placement and location of the water lines with KKBNA regarding access to fire
hydrants off the site, and there doen not appear to be a problem with the sizing
of the lines or location to the property. The developer certifies that they will
meet all conditions set by the district fire department with regard to fire
hydrants and firefighting capacity on site. The existing water pressure in the
area and availability of water is sufficient for this site according to discussions
with KK.Bt;A. The off-street parking for the proposed site will be adequate to
handle the development in accordance with the parking requirements of the zoning
regulations and subdivision regulations. The intended use of the property would
-3-
(Time Share Reque-, Cont'd)
be for time-sharing, residential, accommodation, and commercial uses. The proposed
project is part of the downtown area as far as manageable walking distance to the
adjacent sites even with total buildout of the town. There is public transportation
near the site which should be expanded to cover the proposed site as well. The
proposed development will be in keeping with the existing surrounding uses and
also the proposed uses to the west. There should be negative impact on the view
corridors, pollution or other public services in the area. In discussions with
Mountain Engineering Company, there appears to be a bottleneck on the sewer line
located along the railroad tracks of the Denver 6 Rio Grande Railway. The
developer agrees to pay his pro -rata share along with the other developers that will
be impacting that line for the sizing of the line to accommodate all the proposed
development. He stated they are applying for sixty (60) units . He also stated
that they have talked with the Town Council about possibly revising the Master
Plan for the Town of Avon, which may allow additional uses on the site.
Terrill stated that this is a different case because there is no approved design
shown. If approved as it is now, all the items listed in the Special Review Use
criteria should be left open for further consideration. Feels that because
there is such a lack of information, the Board should be very careful about how
this is considered in relationship to other buildings. Feels this should be a
conceptual review. The Board could say they are generally favorable but needs to
see exactly what is meant.
Jerry stated that he doesn't feel the Board could even consider this without
actually seeing what is to be approved. The rest of the board felt the same.
Art stated that there is no conceptual approval under special review use.
Terrill stated that the Board could only give general direction as to time-sharing.
Mike stated that he felt it is not possible to act upon :.n application without
having the requirements of special review criteria fulfilled. That would include
some kind of design, type of fixtures or quality of woodwork, appearance of the
building, the location and function of the building and other activities on the
site including parking and access. Also verification from those who are qualified
and have authority to speak to fire protection, sewage disposal, water availability,
so that this Board and the Town Council would have concrete material to act on.
Tommy, Cheryl 6 Bob all agreed in that they would like to see more. .terry
stated that because of the public safety, they need to see some kind of
indication of how the area is to be used.
Steve stated their main concern was to find out if there were any surrounding
land owners who might he against the use. He felt that the Boards comments
were quite helpful. (no one was present to protest) Steve decided to withdrawn
the application with the understanding that if and when he decides to re -apply,
the entire procedure for a public hearing is to be followeu.
1I, Variance Request for Setback, Lot B
. 82-6-3. (Public Heartne)
Nick Dalba made the presentation. Asking for a variance to occur in an area that
1s approximately 56 feet wide. This will be for a drive-through type canopy.
Feels that the second phase of the project will have the bulk of commercial.
(presented a model showing the canopy). At one point the canopy is about 4 feet
into the right-of-way and 10 feet at the other. It is necessary to have the canopy
In the right-of-way because they will be having an extensive sidewalk area and
receiving area and this will allow for a 20 foot driveway for 2 cars. At some
point in time they would like to have a bus shuttle to the airport. Cheryl asked
why this wasn't in the original design of the building. Nick explained that it is
difficult to plan for four years. As time goes on you see a need to have things
like this. He feels that if they can•iot have the canopy then it will put undue
hardship on the development. Tommy asked what is planned in the future for
widening of the road (Beaver Creek Blvd.). Norm stated that there is enough right-
of-way for a four lane road. Nick stated they are not in the right-of-way, only
in the setback. Art stated that the regulations say the front is on the street.
Terrill stated that the Board is only considering the variance - not the design.
Norm stated that normally he doesn't like encroachments into the setbacks along
the street line, but in this case it is on the outside of the curve and has no
affect on the site distance.
There being no futher discussion, the following motion was made by Tommy Landauer:
WHEREAS, the Design Revi.w Board of the Town of Avon has considered the apnliention
developer agrees to pay his pru-rata share along with the otuer developers that will
be impacting that line for the sizing of the line to accommodate all the proposed
development. He stated they are applying for sixty (60) units . He also stated
that they have talked with the Town Council about possibly revising the Master
Plan for the Town of Avon, which may allow additional uses on the site.
Terrill stated that this is a different case because there is no approved design
shown. If approved as it is now, all the items listed in the Special Review Use
criteria should be left open for further consideration. Feels that because
there is such a lack of information, the Board should be very careful about how
this is considered in relationship to other buildings. Feels this should be a
conceptual review. The Board could say they are generally favorable but needs to
see exactly what is meant.
Jerry stated that he doesn't feel the Board could even consider this without
actually seeing what is to be approved. The rest of the board felt the same.
Art stated that there is no conceptual approval under special review use.
Terrill stated that the Board could only give general direction as to time-sharing.
Mike stated that he felt it is not possible to act upon an application without
having the requirements of special review criteria fulfilled. That would include
some kind of design, type of fixtures or quality of woodwork, appearance of the
building, the location and function of the building and other activities on the
site including parking and access. Also verification from those who are qualified
and have authority to speak to fire protection, sewage disposal, water availability,
so that this Board and the Town Council would have concrete material to act on.
Tommy, Cheryl 6 Bob all agreed in that they would like to see more. Jerry
stated that because of the public safety, they need to see some kind of
indication of how the area is to be used.
Steve stated their main concern was to find out if there were any surrounding
land owners who might be against the use. He felt that the Boards comments
were quite helpful. (no one was present to protest) Steve decided to withdrawn
the application with the understanding that if and when he decides to re -apply,
the entire procedure for a public hearing is to be followed.
Item No. 3, Avon
Benchmark Subdiv
t for Setback, Lot
Hea
Nick Dalba made the presentation. Asking for a variance to occur in an area that
is approximately 56 feet wide. This will be for a drive-through type canopy.
Feels that the second phase of the project will have the bulk of commercial.
(presented a model showing the canopy). At one point the canopy is about 4 feet
into the right-of-way and 10 feet at the other. It is necessary to have the canopy
in the right-of-way because they will be having an extensive sidewalk area and
receiving area and this will allow for a 20 foot driveway for 2 cars. At some
point in time they would like to have a bus shuttle to the airport. Cheryl asked
why this wasn't in the original design of the building. Nick explained that it is
difficult to plan for four years. As time goes on you see a need to have things
like this. He feels that if they cannot have the canopy then it will put undue
hardship on the development. Tommy asked what is planned in the future for
widening of the road (Beaver Creek Blvd.). Norm stated that there is enough right-
of-way for a four lane road. Nick stated they are not in the right-of-way, only
in the setback. Art stated that the regulations say the front is on the street.
Terrill stated that the Board is only considering the variance - not the design.
Norm stated that normally he doesn't like encroachments into the setbacks along
the street line, but in this case it is on the outside of the curve and has no
affect on the site distance.
There being no futher discussion, the following motion was made by Tommy Landauer:
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Avon has considered the application
of Avon Center @ Beaver Creek for a variance to permit the encroachment of twenty (20)
feet into the twenty-five foot setback for fifty (50) feet along the north boundary
of Lot B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, has conducted a public
-4-
(Avon Center Contf r . `y
hearing on such application and has determined that such application should be
granted, due to the following facts:
(1) The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district,
(2) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity,
(3) That the variance is warranted for the following reason:
i. the strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance.
Moti.on was seconded by Cheryl, with no further discussion. Passed unanimously.
Terrill stated that according to definition the canopy is part of the building
and therefore is considered in the building area ratio.
Nick Dalba stated that he would come to the next regular meeting to get approval
for the design of the canopy. Mike asked if the applicant would seriously
consider using the pillars (uot a requirement).
rra Duplex". Final Approval. Lot 74. Block
David Irwin, designer and builder, made the presentation. Proposing to build
a duplex which will be a log home. The logs are a little harder type of wood
than a pine. The stone will be California quarry rock. Everything else will be
natural. The retaining wall will be concrete with stone facing. There will be
8 Blue Spruce, 10 Aspens and 6 Junipers.
Mika stated that log homes are supposed to be on wooded lots according to the
Wildridge Covenants, so this will need to get approval from the Wildridge
Covenants Committee.
Cheryl motioned to approve the application as submitted for the "Sierra Duplex"
by David Irwin, with the plans submitted and materials submitted and the
amendments as noted on the plan. Motion was seconded by Tommy, passed unanimously.
Item No. 6. "Goldsworth-Law Duplex". Conceptual Review, Lot 36, Block 1
Dan Krening made the presentation for the duplex. The building materials
will be 1 x 8 channel rustic cedar siding; uncoursed moss rock to eliminate
large areas of exposed concrete foundation wall; red cedar shake shingles;
rough -sawn cedar for facia, handrails and all other exposed trim;
redwood lumber for decking; clear seal finish to be applied to all siding,
decks, facia and wood trim. No "colored" stain will be used. Bronze
aluminium clad windows will be used throughout. There will be a one -car garage
for each side.
The Board felt that the duplex was too much of a mirror image. Jerry suggested
changing the entrances for driveways. Also in the landscaping the applicant
should add at least 30 percent more of what is proposed to be sure the proper
number survive. Mike commented that the lot is located on a high rocky ridge,
which is very visible. Also the soil appears to be very thin. The trees would
need to be properly cared for.
Art mentioned the party wall agreement at the time of final platting, in that
often it causes a problem when trying to reconcile a lot line.
Terrill stated that no action is taken on a Conceptual Review
Other Business:
Terrill stated that he and Art put together packages with the regulations
and ordinances needed for the meetings, for each member.
i. the strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Ordinance.
Motion was seconded by Cheryl, with no further discussion. Passed unanimously.
Terrill stated that according to definition the canopy is part of the building
arl therefore is considered in the building area ratio.
Nick Dalba stated that he would come to the next regular meeting t, get approval
for the design of the canopy. Mike asked if the applicant would seriously
consider using. the pillars (not a requirement).
Item No. 5, "Sierra Duplex", Final Approval, Lot 74, Block 1
David Irwin, designer and builder, made the presentation. Proposing to build
a duplex which will be a log home. The logs are a little harder type of wood
than a pine. The stone will be California quarry rock. Everything else will be
natural. The retaining wall will be concrete with stone facing. There will be
8 Blue Spruce, 10 Aspens and 6 Junipers.
Mike stated that log homes are supposed to be on wooded lots according to the
Wildridge Covenants, so this will need to get approval from the Wildridge
Covenants Committee.
Cheryl motioned to approve the application as submitted for the "Sierra Duplex"
by David Irwin, with the plans submitted and materials submitted and the
amendments as noted on the plan. Motion was seconded by Tommy, passed unanimously.
rth-Law Duplex", Conceptual Review, Lot 36
Dan Krening made the presentation for the duplex. The buildiDg materials
will be 1 x 8 channel rustic cedar siding; uncoursed moss rock to eliminate
large areas of exposed concrete foundation wall; red cedar shake shingles;
rough -sawn cedar for facia, handrails and all other exposed trim;
radwood lumber for decking; clear seal finish to be applied to ali siding,
decks, facia and wood trim. No "colored" stain will be used. Bronze
aluminium clad windows will be used throughout. There will be a one -car garage
for each side.
The Board felt that the duplex was too much of a mirror image. Jerry suggested
changing the entrances for driveways. Alsp in the landscaping the applicant
should add at least 30 percent more of what is proposed to be sure the proper
number survive. Mike commented that the lot is located on a high rocky ridge,
which is very visible. Also the soil appears to be very thin. The trees would
need to be properly cared for.
Art mentioned the party wall agreement at the time of final platting, in that
often it causes a problem when trying to reconcile a lot line.
Terrill stated that no action is taken on a Conceptual Review
Other Business:
Terrill stated that he and Art put together packages with the regulations
and ordinances needed for the meetings, for each member.
It was decided to amend the regulations as far as the procedures for Public
Hearings (letters sent out by certified mail and posting) to make it a requirement.
-5-
M?&04S �
(other business cont'd)
Mirror images were also discussed. It was suggested that something is put
in the regulations that "Mirror Image construction is discouraged". Terrill
added that it may be discouraged however, imaginitive designs may be accepted.
The Board decided that this should be added to the regulations.
The number of flagpoles for Avon Center was also discussed as far as the
number approved. The Building Department is to check into this.
Cheryl motioned to approve the minutes of May 20, 1982, Motion was seconded by
Bob and passed unanimously.
Bob motioned to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Cheryl and passed
unanimously.
Submitted by:
hatoj , Com.,
Melody Cummi gs
Recording Secretary
Design Review Board